Joshi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1049 : CEC PR Application Refused After Officer Found Telecommunications Sales Work Was Retail Rather Than Wholesale

In Joshi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1049, the Federal Court allowed judicial review of a refusal of permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class (CEC). The Officer excluded the Applicant’s experience with Rogers Communications from the claimed NOC 62100 – Technical Sales Specialist – Wholesale Trade, concluding that the Applicant worked in retail rather than wholesale. The Court found that the Officer’s reasoning was not transparent, intelligible, or justified because it failed to adequately address the Applicant’s job duties, employment evidence, and job title.

Key Principle

When assessing work experience under a particular NOC, an officer must consider the substance of the work actually performed, including the lead statement, main duties, essential duties, employment evidence, and relevant illustrative examples. An officer cannot simply infer that employment is “retail” because the applicant worked in a retail location or received hourly wages plus commission. The reasons must demonstrate a rational connection between the evidence and the conclusion reached.

Background

The Applicant, an Indian citizen, applied for permanent residence under the CEC. He relied in part on his employment experience with Rogers Communications. His employment letter described him as a sales associate and identified duties involving telecommunications support, technical product knowledge, and sales services. The letter also stated that he offered Rogers Preferred Plan services to commercial and governmental clients.

NOC 62100 covers technical sales specialists in wholesale trade, including telecommunications services. Its duties include maintaining and soliciting clients, assessing client needs, negotiating prices, preparing sales presentations and contracts, providing technical support, and developing technical knowledge. The NOC also lists “technical sales representative” and “communication equipment sales representative” as illustrative examples.

The Officer accepted that the Applicant performed some of the duties under NOC 62100 but concluded that his experience was not in the wholesale industry because he worked in a Rogers retail store and was paid hourly wages plus commission.

Court Findings

• The Officer Failed to Provide a Logical Chain of Analysis

The Court found that the Officer simply identified the Rogers location as a retail store and concluded that the Applicant therefore worked outside the wholesale sector. The additional reference to hourly wages and commission did not logically explain why the Applicant’s experience failed to meet NOC 62100.

• The Employment Duties Were Not Properly Addressed

The Applicant’s employment letter described duties that significantly resembled the main duties under NOC 62100 and stated that he served commercial and government clients. The Officer did not explain why this evidence was insufficient or why those duties should instead be characterized as retail work. The Court held that the Respondent could not supplement the Officer’s deficient reasoning during judicial review.

• The Officer Failed to Consider the Illustrative Job Titles

The Court also found that the Officer failed to address the Applicant’s job title in light of the illustrative examples under NOC 62100. The Applicant was described as a sales associate for a telecommunications company, while the NOC expressly included technical and communication equipment sales positions. This omission contributed to the lack of transparent and intelligible reasoning.

• Respondent Could Not Supplement the Officer’s Reasons

The Court rejected the Respondent’s attempt to justify the refusal by comparing NOC 62100 with other potentially applicable NOCs. Because the Officer had not made that analysis in the original decision, the Court could not rely on counsel’s additional reasoning to cure the deficiency.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, quashed the refusal, and remitted the CEC application to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Joshi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1049 (CanLII)